Perfect support for my position and against yours.
Look at Fig. 3.1.1. You clearly see the peak C19 deaths in Week 7 for the line „zonder“ (= without) latency time. You also see a tiny surplus in Week 47 to 49.
Perfect support for my position and against yours.
Look at Fig. 3.1.1. You clearly see the peak C19 deaths in Week 7 for the line „zonder“ (= without) latency time. You also see a tiny surplus in Week 47 to 49.
You may argue: Because they were not yet protected. However, it is antiintuitive to get such sharp peaks. And you could never explain the December surplus, as people were told to be protected. We know from the whole C19 crisis that misclassification on death certificates were very common, simply because encouraged by the WHO.
In the set without carehomes (Fig 3.1.2) the peak is even brighter.
Off course, you should also look at nonC19-mortality in Fig 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. In principle the same. Initially increased mortality.
Essential point: The dutch statistician did not want to show us accumulated data. Most likely, as such figures would have clarified that the vaccinated never catch-up the initial disadvatange. The essential killing argument against the vaccines.
Further below the Dutch statisticians showed figures comparing „vacinated“ vs. „unvaccinated“, however, using the cheap trick, i.e. counting events in the initial phase after vaccination to the unvaccinated. The same cheap trick you used in with the Czech data.
The Czech data are totally unrealiable.
Apart from this, the interpretation of VAERS data (that Moderna would cause more deaths) is totally wrong.
Thank you for reminding me to the Dutch data.
https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/longread/rapportages/2024/covid-vaccinatiestatus-en-sterfte/3-resultaten.
Perfect support for my position and against yours.
Look at Fig. 3.1.1. You clearly see the peak C19 deaths in Week 7 for the line „zonder“ (= without) latency time. You also see a tiny surplus in Week 47 to 49.
You may argue: Because they were not yet protected. However, it is antiintuitive to get such sharp peaks. And you could never explain the December surplus, as people were told to be protected. We know from the whole C19 crisis that misclassification on death certificates were very common, simply because encouraged by the WHO.
In the set without carehomes (Fig 3.1.2) the peak is even brighter.
Off course, you should also look at nonC19-mortality in Fig 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. In principle the same. Initially increased mortality.
Essential point: The dutch statistician did not want to show us accumulated data. Most likely, as such figures would have clarified that the vaccinated never catch-up the initial disadvatange. The essential killing argument against the vaccines.
Further below the Dutch statisticians showed figures comparing „vacinated“ vs. „unvaccinated“, however, using the cheap trick, i.e. counting events in the initial phase after vaccination to the unvaccinated. The same cheap trick you used in with the Czech data.
The Czech data are totally unrealiable.
Apart from this, the interpretation of VAERS data (that Moderna would cause more deaths) is totally wrong.
https://tkp.at/2024/08/06/spikevax-gefaehrlicher-als-comirnaty-steve-kirsch-greift-daneben/comment-page-1/#comment-168672